|
Beck was criticizing long dead U.S. diplomat, Edward House, for his suggestions about the Federal Reserve: "I am suggesting that the Central Board be increased from four members to five and their terms lengthened from eight to ten years. This would give stability and would take away the power of a President to change the personnel of the board during a single term of office." As Beck was speaking, the on-screen text(1) behind him indicated the source of this quote:
Mullins' anti-Semitism was rabid and well documented by the Anti-Defamation League.(2) This was not the first time that Beck has cited the work of renown anti-Semite. Previously, Beck promoted author Elizabeth Dilling, who like Mullins, was also a pro-Hitler racist and a rabid anti-Semite. Beck did not apologize for that effort.
The progressive media watchdog organization, Media Matters for America, has claimed in an e-mail that by showing Mullins' Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Beck demonstrated hypocrisy again in this case because of his criticism of Obama, green jobs adviser, Van Jones, as a signer (now removed) of the 9-11 Truth statement. That is perhaps too strong of a claim on their part at least with respect to Van Jones. It is unlikely that Beck was aware of Mullins' claims about who was behind 9-11. However, Beck claims to oppose racism, and for this he could be declared hypocritical for promoting Mullins' book. However, he did not exactly promote it; Beck merely cited the text and in all likelihood is ignorant of Mullins' racist views.
hypocrite, fake or both?
If Beck was aware of Mullins' views, then he indeed demonstrated hypocrisy again for citing this text. Conversely, if Beck just read what was placed in front of him on the teleprompter, then he's nothing more than an ignorant charlatan citing a reference that a genuine historian would not use as a source. Whoever supplied Beck with this resource information may or may not have known about Mullins' racist views. Either way, Glenn Beck is the propagandist citing the reference of an anti-Semite, and thus bears responsibility for it. Perhaps the most stunning hypocrisy here is that Beck engages in this effort in order to expose propaganda!(3)
In a world where integrity and honor matters, Beck would not be allowed to continue his yellow propaganda. However, Beck works for Fox, a political operation with one purpose: to undermine the Democrats and get Republican Tea Party candidates elected to office. In that effort, Fox is not fair, balanced, honest or honorable. For that matter, the conservative media watchdogs, Media Research Center, who avert their eyes away from Beck's deceptions, hypocrisies and ignorance, demonstrate their disregard for honesty, principles and informed punditry. There is indeed a vast, right-wing, tacit conspiracy to deceive the American public; and the last goal these folks have in mind is to restore honor or - for that matter - honorable journalism.
Update 10/4/2010: Because Barry Cooper, writing in the comments below, doesn't seem to be able to grasp the point of this criticism, namely that "the most stunning hypocrisy here is that Beck engages in this effort in order to expose propaganda," the following is the video where Beck's propaganda against progressive propaganda is expressed.
In a world where integrity and honor matters, Beck would not be allowed to continue his yellow propaganda. However, Beck works for Fox, a political operation with one purpose: to undermine the Democrats and get Republican Tea Party candidates elected to office. In that effort, Fox is not fair, balanced, honest or honorable. For that matter, the conservative media watchdogs, Media Research Center, who avert their eyes away from Beck's deceptions, hypocrisies and ignorance, demonstrate their disregard for honesty, principles and informed punditry. There is indeed a vast, right-wing, tacit conspiracy to deceive the American public; and the last goal these folks have in mind is to restore honor or - for that matter - honorable journalism.
Update 10/4/2010: Because Barry Cooper, writing in the comments below, doesn't seem to be able to grasp the point of this criticism, namely that "the most stunning hypocrisy here is that Beck engages in this effort in order to expose propaganda," the following is the video where Beck's propaganda against progressive propaganda is expressed.
Mr. Cooper: propaganda against propaganda is hypocritical. Beck "hates" Woodrow Wilson; Beck is a hateful man. Not a very good Christian, i.e., a hateful man still not very far along on his recovery from being a self-proclaimed "dirt bag. "
Before more people start swallowing Beck's propaganda,
get involved
Post a comment
All non-spam comments approved
Free speech is practiced here
------------------------------------------------------
Please get involved for 10 minutes
Share this URL with your friends
http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com
Thank you
3) http://mediamatters.org/research/201009220060 (listen to video clip)
16 comments:
In some six paragraphs of froth, the claims made are these:
Glenn Beck offered up an unimportant citation--which cannot have been a major piece of evidence for ANY conceivable claim--from someone who was apparently an anti-Semite.
No anti-Semitic claims were made in the book. They were views held by the author privately, and presumably published in other booksm, but not this one.
Whether or not Beck was aware of the authors' views expressed elsewhere is unknown.
Therefore, Glenn Beck is a race-baiting hateful fool.
This is not argument. This is not even good innuendo. This is vitriolic pap that only counts as argument for the mentally feeble and the intentionally blind.
Let us compare this, as an example, with the views of Jeremiah Wright, who quite recently said "them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me."
"Them Jews". This is standard anti-Semitic fare. This is the claim that "Jews"--always understood as a monolithic group which exercises power in secret and to the detriment of the rest of us--has the POWER to keep Wright away from Obama.
What about his comment "Damn America"? What about his black revolutionary Marxist rhetoric? What about the fact that Wright is and always has been so far outside the mainstream that our President--who is plainly fond of Wright--found it necessary to dissociated himself from his friend, lest he act as a political lodestone around his neck?
What about Wright's own well documented friendship with Louis Farrakhan, who has railed against Jews almost daily for his entire adult life?
On the one hand, we have the association of quoting someone who has been dead a long time, which Beck has never met, and which has nothing to do with race.
On the other, we have long term personal, voluntary associations. Which should carry more weight for a rational mind, trying to determine the truth both of Beck's convictions, and those of our President?
As far as that goes, which of the two is more open and forthcoming with respect to their past? If the public demanded Beck's college transcripts, they would no doubt get them. No Leftist would be stupid enough to do so, though, as there is no advantage to be gained, and much to be lost in terms of credibility in the comparison with the furtiveness and secrecy of our Commander in Chief.
Barry, you put conclusions that I didn't reach in my "mouth." I never said that Beck was hateful, not here, not anywhere; although the tone of many of his rants do sound hateful of this President and progressives. He makes no bones of his hatred for Woodrow Wilson; so yes, Beck is hateful (and not particularly Christian for it).
You assert that "no anti-Semitic claims where made in the book. You've read this book? If you had bothered doing some research and examine my sources, you'd had found that "the Anti-Defamation League called the book Beck promoted 'a re-hash of Mullins' anti-Semitic theories about the origins of the Federal Reserve.'"
Beck is a race-baiter. That is well established here. Try reading The Glenn Beck Review in its entirety. I doubt it, but it may just crack your closed mind open a smidgen. That is if you're not "mentally feeble and the intentionally blind."
If you want to start a blog to examine the anti-Semitism of Rev. Wright, Barry, knock yourself out. I would read it if I gave a damn about him. That the President has distanced himself from Wright is apparently lost on you.
You ask about the truth of Beck's convictions. What truth? What convictions?
Let my tell you something about Beck's past. He is not forthcoming about a certain aspect of it. I won't say anymore about this, but I have found out, from a collaborator, interesting but not particularly useful info about Beck in his youth. Olbermann is seeking dirt on Beck; he won't get this info from me. It's not relevant.
What's important about Beck's college transcript, I already know. He quit Yale after one course on the history of religion. He claims he could not afford to continue. How's that excuse holding up? Beck is against going to America's universities because he is an arrogant, anti-intellectual reactionary who wants to keep his sheep as ignorant as he is.
You want to make this about Obama. This is The Glenn Beck Review, and nothing that you have asserted here has put a scratch on the three major assertions of this Review that Beck is a liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan (the latter due to his lack of education).
Look, I could hammer away on your assertions and misuse of English; but this is not the Barry Cooper Review and there are more important matters to attend to. You are clearly a sycophant of Beck's and can't stand that someone is pointing out his lack of credibility as a commentator. How you let your ideology blind you to the facts about Mr. Beck is not interesting. The Media Research Center does the same thing.
I'll give you this much: you recognize Obama as our Commander and Chief. That's better than many who comment on Beck's website and on TheBlaze.com.
Let me respond to the substantive point you made "the Anti-Defamation League called the book Beck promoted 'a re-hash of Mullins' anti-Semitic theories about the origins of the Federal Reserve.'"
First off, this says nothing about Beck, other than that his source editor could have used a better resource, say a book by Murray Rothbard.
Second, the book itself is primarily concerned with the Federal Reserve System, which was apparently what Beck was commenting on. The issue at hand is this: did he quote it correctly, and was the information cited accurate?
People interested in facts, which is to say people interested in calling other people liars by contradicting their statements with known truths, are interested in things like this.
You aren't. What you are doing, here, and elsewhere, is trying to slander Beck on the flimsiest of pretexts. You simply want to cast dirt in his general direction, and see what sticks. None did, in this case, as your "research" is farcical, and your reasoning non-existent. I could make as strong a case if you ever, anywhere, quoted anyone who had done anything Alinskyan bigots like yourself could use against them.
You keep claiming that Beck is a "liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan". You have shown that you have no interest in impartial, reasoned analysis here. What else do you have?
As I asked you before: point to what you believe is your strongest, most airtight case, and I will comment on it.
In my opinion, nothing on this fruitcake website is or can be any better than this nonsense, since you didn't reason your way into it. You hated your way into your views, and are trying to work backwards by citing an occasional fact to pretend otherwise.
Why has Barry become Mountain Goat? Given the oddity of your eccentric views (yes, Barry, I've looked at your blog and website), I'm not surprised by your animal transformation. You need to take care about throwing the "fruitcake" accusation around with some of your wacky ideas. "Henomoralism" indeed!
At any rate, to feed the troll a little longer, my recommendation for you is to go to the beginning. A few of the posts are the disclaimer, share this URL, etc pages; but most of the 150 other posts have what adds up to a pretty damning case against Mr. Beck.
You read them all and tell me where you think I have something wrong. First, tell me why Beck defends the use of anti-Semitic authors like Elizabeth Diller (other than most Jewish people will have nothing to do with someone like Glenn Beck).
I used my Google account. I didn't see the Name/URL. My name is Barry Cooper, and I'm still waiting for you to respond like a big boy. Let me make it so simple a child could follow it:
First, you claim that Beck is an anti-Semite. You further accuse him of race-baiting, hypocrisy and a host of other sins. Your "evidenc", here, is that he quoted a book from a friend of Ezra Pounds concerning the Federal Reserve, and that that person was known to have made comments about internationa Jewish bankers.
You show no evidence that Beck endorsed those views. You show no evidence that Beck--who runs a TV Show, a radio show, is constantly engaged in writing books, who just put together a 500,000 person march on Washington, and who just set up a news site--knew about those views in the first place.
As far as that goes, neither did you speak to the case he was trying to make there, of which this was just one small piece of evidence.
You have failed to make your case, son. If you can't make this case, and can't admit that you didn't make your case, then why move on to anything else? As far as I can tell, this entire site is 99% froth, and 1% decontextualized and abused fact. If you want to claim otherwise, then do it.
"Glenn Beck is a racist" is a claim, not a fact. If you want to make that claim, you need to point to specific things he said that reasonable, adult minds would see as pointing in that direction.
There is nothing in this post which does so.
Your turn. Again, my name is Barry Cooper, and my intent here is demonstrate incontrovertibly that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that your libellous claims appeal--and can only appeal--to the minds of preindoctrinated fools.
Barry, your reading comprehension has a bit to be desired. Did I claim that Beck is an anti-Semite? No, I suggest that he's a hypocrite for using anti-Semitic texts on one hand and claiming to be against racism on the other hand. At least he's responsible for spouting the ideas of an anti-Semite. I think that the most pointed criticism about using Secrets of the Federal Reserve is that he's a tool of the uber-rich Koch brothers and their anti-regulation, pro-corporate ideals.
Ditto with your defective idea that I claim here or anywhere that Beck is a racist. I've been very careful to not make that claim until I have pretty solid evidence to that effect. Some have claimed that Beck is a symbolic racist, but I'm not prepared to make that assertion yet.
You are right about one thing, although I take issue with your language. I know that the ideological among us, such as yourself, do not have open minds. It IS the "preindoctrinated" people who have open minds, but - you arrogant fuck - they are not "fools." Many "preindoctinated," as you call them, are busy people who just don't know much if anything about Glenn Beck. These are the people that Beck and I are in an unfair race to reach. Beck has millions of minions; I have an idea. Share this URL to reach the open minded before Beck ensnares them with his persuasive gift of believable deceptions. He's a con-man, but I do NOT claim nor believe even that he's a racist.
Keep trying, Barry, you tool. Dig deeper. You need to prove your claim that "this entire site is 99% froth." I've challenged his followers to disprove my claims. All you've done here is to disprove claims that I didn't make. You failed!
I'm sorry. I overestimated your intellectual capacity at that of a child. Let me repeat one line, to which you can reply:
"You show no evidence that Beck endorsed those views. You show no evidence that Beck--who runs a TV Show, a radio show, is constantly engaged in writing books, who just put together a 500,000 person march on Washington, and who just set up a news site--knew about those views in the first place."
You claim Beck is a hypocrite for citing a text you have not shown he knew was anti-Semitic, and which for all I--and you--know may not have been the source of the comments that caused Mullins to be labeled anti-Semitic in the first place.
Again, you have failed to make your case. In so doing, I would submit to you that your site is now 99.1% froth.
Sad, pathetic Barry: you have no friends on Facebook and a blog that no one reads; so you feel like you can do some good defending a reactionary blowhard like Mr. Beck by (laughably) repeating Beck's lie that his Restoring Dishonor (by lying during his speech) drew a half-million people. If the professional head counters were off by a whopping 100%, there were fewer than 200,000 at Beck's rally of reactionaries. I count about 180,000 - 200,000 lost souls in his audience.
My points in the post, which you don't seem to be able to grasp very well, is that 1) Beck is the mouth. What comes out his mouth is his responsibility; so yes, whether he was aware of the anti-Semetic views of the author or not, he is the one responsible for using the ideas of an anti-Semite (again) for his anti-progressive propaganda. 2) If you'd take the time to listen to the video of third footnote (a hot link), then you'd know that Beck is again engaging in propaganda against progressivism while denouncing propaganda. He's not against propaganda at all; he's against propaganda that he doesn't agree with.
I'm well aware that as an ardent defender of Mr. Beck, no answer is going to be satisfactory for you. Maybe this is merely a case of having double standards, but you're not even trying to make that case. You're just rising up to defend your hero, the liar, hypocrite and utter fake, Glenn Beck. Plus, you're on one post, but the other posts are "froth." Next time, you'll come off actually informed if you actually read the posts and comment on them.
Look, find yourself a reactionary who is worthy of defending. As a Republican, I recommend Ron Paul. He's smart, consistent and amiable, unlike Beck who's average at best, hypocritical, mean-spirited, nasty, arrogant and a self-described "rodeo clown." He's entertaining to watch, but no one who is concerned about truth and integrity should follow...or defend. What other lies of his do you believe, Barry? Think he held Washington's address to the nation in his hands? He's a liar, and it's proven over and over and over here. Take the challenge, and show where I'm wrong about this.
I guess you're suggesting here that my intellectual capacity is that of a baby? No, you're not an arrogant fuck though, right Barry? Wrong!
Finally, not to disillusion you, but you're not a conservative. I've checked out your "likes;" you're a reactionary.
If you want to make the claim that Beck is a hypocrite, the only claim you can make is that if he wants to chide others for not making sure that each and every quote they use on any topic whatsoever is completely, 100% ideologically clean, then he can't do so with a clean conscience.
If, as you do, you want to call him a hypocrite for railing against racism, while knowingly citing an anti-Semite, you have not made that case. This fact is ineluctable. And when I ask you to point me to your strongest case, you refuse. This WOULD be a simple enough request, for someone who actually had the capacity for reasoned argument, which of course is a counterfactual condition.
If anyone is reading this other than Mr. Tiffan and me, look at his posts. Parse them for facts. See what concrete claims he makes which anyone could evaluate dispassionately as evidence. There are none.
Here is one quote, taken at random: "I'm well aware that as an ardent defender of Mr. Beck, no answer is going to be satisfactory for you. Maybe this is merely a case of having double standards, but you're not even trying to make that case."
This is pure assertion, and it is contradicted by the fact that I have refuted his claim that Beck was a hypocrite, by simply pointing out that he was not using anti-Semitic rhetoric, and merely quoting from a book whose author had some objectionable views which he likely did not know about.
This, my friends, is what leftist propaganda looks like. It is frothy, vicious, and content-free.
If this Review is "content-free" then you are comprehension-free.
The hypocrisy, as I point out in the post: "Glenn Beck is the propagandist citing the reference of an anti-Semite, and thus bears responsibility for it. Perhaps the most stunning hypocrisy here is that Beck engages in this effort in order to expose propaganda!"(3)
Beck is a propagandist railing against propaganda. THAT's the hypocrisy I think stands out. Media Matters for America thinks that it is his use of Secrets of the Federal Reserve, which is deplorable; but I don't claim that it makes him a racist or necessarily a hypocrite.
Barry, I would suggest again that you spend some time reading this blog, but it won't do any good. Instead, I will point out this: you are a follower of Mr. Beck and a defender of his "honor." That "assertion" is pretty obvious.
Beck is an extremist. His subscription-only magazine is called, "Insider Extreme." He is a reactionary who wants the U.S. to go back to the 19th Century. These positions are not moderate, not in any sense of the word.
You need to ask yourself why someone, who authors "Moderates United," would ever get behind and defend someone as far out of the mainstream of American politics as Beck is.
I have a guess: "Moderates United" is a deception. You're either an extremist like Beck, or you're blind to Beck's extreme ideology. You're either lying to your audience or you're lying to yourself.
Finally, if you think this Review is "vicious," you should visit glennbeckisanidiot.com. By comparison, The Glenn Beck Review is adulation. Also, see The Glenn Beck Report and StopBeck.com. By comparison, I give Mr. Beck a pretty fair shake. You're too emotionally involved with Mr. Beck to comprehend this.
I think I will limit myself to responding to the documentable facts in your post.
Done. That was easy.
For the umpteenth time, I ask that you direct me to your best case, anywhere on this site. The whole damn thing is a long line of undocumented assertions. I'm not going to refute the entirety of Media Matters. Just give me one, really good, juicy fact which you feel leads to an open and shut case in your favor.
With this many posts, surely there IS one such fact, isn't there? Self evidently, it's not found on this page.
Barry, you're not going to refute one example of Media Matters because you cannot.
I don't have to direct you to any particular post. There are 159 here, reactionary extremist: take your pick. Try showing where I have any facts wrong. Start with the contents page. The section called "Beck's false claims" is the largest. Choose any one and prove that Beck was NOT making a false claim. (Good luck with that.)
Why would I do that when you refuse to engage me here? Why move somewhere else when you have done nothing but slobber unbacked personal attacks?
Why not admit that quoting Mullins was as likely as anything an honest mistake, that he was quoted in support of a larger point you have not touched, that the mistake likely won't repeated, and certainly that it constitues no evidence of ANY malfeasance on Beck's part?
If you can't debate here, why would the outcome anywhere else be different? Admit that you have not made your case on this point, and then we can move on. Until you demonstrate rudimentary intellectual capacity and at least a shred of sincere integrity by so doing, I'll just stay here.
Barry, here you go again. Above you claim that I wrote that Beck is an anti-Semite. I didn't write that. Then, you wrote, "you want to call him a hypocrite for railing against racism." I didn't do that either.
Seriously, dud, what grade did you drop out of elementary school? Your reading comprehension is abysmal. Before you post another of your baseless accusations, let me write it again: my one and only accusation here is that Beck is being a hypocrite for railing against progressive propaganda (from 90 years ago!) when he is himself engaged in anti-progressive propaganda. That's it. I took issue with the claim made by Media Matters for America. I doubt Beck was aware of the author's tie to the 9-11 Truther group.
Since you're apparently too lazy or too dim to click on the link I provided, I will update this post with the video that shows Beck railing against propaganda.
You, btw, are being a troll: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet),
"someone who posts ... extraneous ... messages in an online community, such as a ... blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response"
It doesn't work here dud. (Note missing "e.")
To be clear, you are claiming that "I am suggesting that the Central Board be increased from four members to five and their terms lengthened from eight to ten years. This would give stability and would take away the power of a President to change the personnel of the board during a single term of office." is propaganda?
Did Beck misquote it? Is that quote, on its own merits, misleading in some substantial way?
If neither of the above, then by what means do you claim it is "propaganda"?
Logical rigor is clear. Frothiness is the contrary.
BTW Trolls are people who focus on people, not issues. You are the only one here focusing primarily on people.
Barry, at least we're finally on the same page here, but if you don't understand that Beck is engaged in propaganda against progressives and this Administration, then you don't know the meaning of the word.
See: http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/07/what-is-color-of-glenn-beck.html for the definition. Beck is a yellow propagandist, a mean-spirited, deceitful, arrogant and ignorant propagandist. He could also be an honest propagandist; if fact, that is my hope. That someday he'll have a come-to-Jesus moment and realize that dishonesty is not the best policy. Beck is too bizarre for many at Fox (we're learing); why do you feel the need to defend this rodeo clown who calls you a fool for believing what he says?
Post a Comment